IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the assessment of permanent disability and compensation in motor accident cases must consider the claimant's profession and the impact of injuries on their earning capacity, allowing for judicial discretion in enhancing compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(Puneet Gupta, J.) :

1. The appellant-Insurance Company is aggrieved of the award dated 30.03.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu, whereby the respondent-victim has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the amount. The appellant has been held liable to satisfy the award. The award is challenged on the ground that the claimant-Harjit Singh is contributory to the accident and that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the permanent disability of the claimant as 100% though the medical evidence speaks of 85% of disability incurred by the claimant. The award is also challenged on the ground that the compensation granted on account of other heads is also not as per law.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant has argued that the findings of the Tribunal is tenable in law. In fact, the claimant was entitled to the higher amount of the compensation than the one awarded by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that though the claimant has not filed the appeal against the awarded amount, the court can still enhance the compensation if it is of the view that the compensation should be enhanced in facts and circumstance of the case.

3. The record of the Tribunal is also on the file.

4. The accident which took place on 25.05.2010 near Cantonment Crossing Gandhi Nagar, Jammu resulted into the serious injuries to the claimant-Harjit Singh and prompted the claimant to file the claim petition, seeking compensation on account of permanent disability suffered by him. The Tribunal framed following issues in the case:-

1. Whether an accident occurred on 25.05.2010 at about 5:00 a.m. at Cantonment Crossing, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, by rash and negligent driving of offending No. JK02X-3130 by its driver Respondent No. 1 as a result of which petitioner Harjit Singh suffered grievous injuries? OPP

2. If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving licence and whether there was violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance policy? If so to what effect? O.P.R.-3

4. Whether the accident was caused due to contributory negligence of petitioner? If so to what effect? O.P.R.-3

5. Relief O.P. parties

5. Issue Nos. 1&4 being co-related are taken up together for discussion. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the evidence brought on record holds the claimant also responsible for the accident which took place on 25.05.2010. The claimant was not driving the auto rickshaw with care and took a wrong turn which also contributed in causing the accident in question. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the statement of the claimant-Harjit Singh and witness namely Ranjit Singh from wherein it was made out that the car bearing No. JK02X-3130 which came from Jammu city side at a high speed and in a rash manner collided with the Auto rickshaw being driven by the claimant and dragging it to some distance. The accident took place due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the car. The claimant denied the suggestion in cross examination that he did not look around before approaching the main road. The court finds no reason not to go along with the findings of the Tribunal on the Issue Nos. 1&4. The evidence produced by the claimant and the fact that the challan is produced by the police agency only against the driver of the car leave no room for accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant was contributory to the incident in question.

6. The finding on Issue No. 3 is not seriously contested by the appellant and rightly so in view of the findings by the Tribunal.

7. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law